Frequently Asked Questions

This notice explains that the Court has allowed, or “certified,” a class action lawsuit that may affect you. The lawsuit is known as McMillion, et al. v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR (the “TCPA” lawsuit). The “Plaintiff” in this case won a jury trial in May 2019 on behalf of himself and other class members. A jury found that Rash Curtis was liable for making 534,698 calls in violation of the TCPA. On September 9, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and class members in the amount of $267,359,000. On October 25, 2019, the Court granted the lead Plaintiff’s motion to approve the October 11, 2019 assignment of Rash Curtis’s rights against its insurance company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, in exchange for Plaintiff’s covenant not to execute the judgment against Rash Curtis. As a result of the assignment, the lead Plaintiff filed the “Bad Faith” lawsuit against the insurance company, called Perez v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-07288-YGR, in the Northern District of California. The lead Plaintiff has since recovered $75,600,000 from the Bad Faith lawsuit that he has proposed be used to satisfy the judgment in the TCPA lawsuit. On October 1, 2021, the Court issued the Order Granting in Part Proposed Plan of Distribution of Settlement Proceeds, Including an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Service Award for the Class Representative. The Court also appointed Digital Settlement Group (“DSG”) and AI Class Solutions (AiCS) as the Administrators. The Court ordered that DSG and AiCS shall distribute the Settlement Funds as follows: (i) payment of $25,000 to plaintiff Perez as an incentive award; (ii) reimbursement to class counsel of $556,525.80 for authorized expenses; (iii) payment of attorneys’ fees to class counsel in the amount of 37 percent of the Settlement Funds or $27,972,000. The balance of $46,421,474.20 shall be paid pro rata per call, after accounting for any expenses and costs incurred by DSG and AiCS. The precise terms of the Plan of Distribution are described in the August 19, 2021 Declaration of Mark Schey Re: Distribution Plan. Although DSG and AiCS will make payments to Class Members automatically wherever possible, AiCS has set up this website where Class Members can elect their preferred method of payment (i.e. paper check, or digital payment through Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal) and to provide change of address information, if necessary. For Class Members that are entitled to sums exceeding $600, the case website also allows them to fill out or upload an already completed Form W9 – which will be required for any Class Member to receive any sum greater than $600.

The lawsuit alleges Defendant called consumers using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior consent in violation of the TCPA.

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Class Representatives” (in this case, Ignacio Perez) sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. The people together are a “Class” or “Class Members.” The named plaintiff who sued – and all the Class Members like them — are called the Plaintiffs. The company they sued (in this case, Rash Curtis & Associates) is called the Defendant. One court resolves the issues for everyone in the Class – except for those people who choose to exclude themselves from the Class.

The Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of the following classes: Skip-Trace Class 1: All persons who received a call on their cellular telephones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis’ DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose cellular telephone was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing. Skip-Trace Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded message or robocall on their cellular telephones [or] landline phones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing. H Cu Non-Debtor Class 1: All persons who received a call on their cellular telephones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis’ DAKCS VIC dialer and/or Global Connect dialer whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash Curtis never had a debt-collection account in their name. Non-Debtor Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded message or robocall on their cellular telephones [or] landline phones from June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019 from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash Curtis has never had a debt-collection account in their name. Excluded from the class are all persons who provided their cellular telephone in an application for credit to a creditor that has opened an account with Defendant in such debtor’s name prior to Defendant first placing a call using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded voice, in addition to entities related to Defendant, Defendant’s agents and employees, and any judge or magistrate judge to whom this action is assigned.

The Court decided that this lawsuit can be a class action and move towards a trial because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal courts. More information about why the Court is allowing this lawsuit to be a class action is in the Court’s Order Certifying the Class

Plaintiff alleges that between June 17, 2012 through April 2, 2019, Defendant made hundreds of thousands of wrong-number phone calls using an autodialer and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without prior consent. You can read the Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint for more information.

Defendant denies any wrongdoing and denies the Plaintiff’s allegations. You can read Defendant’s answer to the complaint for more information.

The Court presided over a jury trial in this case in May 2019. On May 13, 2019, the jury found in Plaintiff’s favor and found that the Defendant made 534,698 calls in violation of the TCPA. On September 9, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of class members in the amount of $267,349,000. The Court entered an amended judgment on May 4, 2020.

At trial, Plaintiff asked Defendant for $500 per wrong-number call placed to parties without prior consent. On May 13, 2019, the jury found that the Defendant made 534,698 calls in violation of the TCPA. On September 9, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of the class members in the amount of $500 per unlawful call, for a total award of $267,349,000. Plaintiff has since recovered $75,600,000 that can be used to satisfy the judgment. Please follow the instructions in this notice to obtain your share of the recovery.

If you don’t do anything now, you may still receive a portion of the $75,600,000 recovery based on the number of calls you received. However, to ensure that you receive payment, it is highly encouraged to submit a claim on this case website. On this website, you can elect your preferred method of payment, and fill out a W9, once provided – which is required for you to receive any funds greater than $600. You will not receive any amounts greater than $600 if you do nothing and do not fill out the provided W9 form, which will be sent to applicable Class Members.

If you are a Class Member and would like to elect your form of payment, you should do so by logging in with the Unique ID and Pin Code provided, and filling out the claim form, by August 31, 2024. By filling out a claim form, you can elect to receive payment by paper check, or digital payment through Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal. Further, by filling out a claim, you can provide change of address information, if necessary. Any checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance. To receive any payments greater than $600, you must fill out a Form W9, which will be sent to applicable Class Members. As discussed above, there are thousands of Class Members that qualify to receive more than a $1,000 out of the judgment, with some Class Member qualifying to receive up to $40,000 (and possibly more through a second distribution). It is vital for all such Class Members to fill out the claim form and fill out the Form W9.

If any funds remain after the initial distribution of judgment proceeds, AiCS will distribute the remaining balance to those Class Members who timely cashed their checks and whose electronic payments were processed. Accordingly, it is vital to timely elect electronic form of payment on the case website or timely cash your check from the first distribution. You will only receive combined payments of $600 or greater from the first and second distributions if you fill out a Form W9.

You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel are working on your behalf. But, if you want your own lawyer, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer.

On this website, you will find all Important Documents including the Court’s Order Certifying the Class, the Court’s Summary Judgment Order the Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint, Defendant’s Answer, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for the Class Representative, Declaration of Scott A. Bursor in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for the Class Representative , Declaration of Ignacio Perez in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for the Class Representative, Final Judgment, the Class Action Verdict Form, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Request for Stay of Briefing on All Pending Motions, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Approve the October 11, 2019 Assignment, Order Granting Motion to Advance Hearing Date and Motion to Approve the October 11, 2019 Assignment, Related Case Order, Order: (1) Granting in Part, Denying in Part Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend the Judgment in Favor of Defendant; (2) Denying Motion to Reduce, Reconsider, Amend, or Vacate the Judgment’s Unconstitutionally Excessive Damages; (3) Denying Motion to Vacate the Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions Based Upon Misconduct of Counsel, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial, or Further Relief as Determined by the Court; (4) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Service Award for the Class Representative, Order (1) Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; (2) Denying Motion to Dismiss Complaint and/or Stay Case; (3) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Strike Portion of Complaint and Exhibits re: Mediation Materials (in Bad Faith case), Amended Complaint (in Bad Faith case), Order Denying Motion to Certify the Court’s May 11, 2020 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (in Bad Faith case), Discovery Order (in Bad Faith case), Bill of Costs, Case Management and Pretrial Order (in Bad Faith case), Order Finding Summary Judgment Pre-Filing Conference Premature (in Bad Faith case), Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion to Stay (in Bad Faith case), Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for the Court to Approve the Proposed Plan of Distribution, the Declaration of Mark Schey Re: Distribution Plan, the Order Granting in Part Proposed Plan of Distribution of Settlement Proceeds, and other important case documents. You may also contact the class notice administrator by email at [email protected], or by writing to: Rash Curtis TCPA Litigation, c/o AI Class Solutions, 75 Washington Valley Rd, Box #146, Bedminster, NJ, 07921.